A group of nearly 1,500 faculty, alumni and students have called on University president Jonathan Levin ’94 and Provost Jenny Martinez to issue their own statement condemning the Trump administration’s actions against higher education after Harvard University rejected demands from the White House, launching a fight over billions of dollars in federal funding.

As of Wednesday evening, over 400 faculty members and close to 1000 alumni and students signed an open letter urging Levin and Martinez to “make a strong, public statement of support and stand with Harvard.”

“Be as firm and clear as President [Alan] Garber in vowing to defend our autonomy and uphold our crucial ability to define the terms under which we teach, do research, and serve the public good,” the letter read. A group of eight faculty — including history professor Jessica Riskin, comparative literature professor David Palumbo-Liu, French literature professor Cecile Alduy and history professor Priya Satia — authored the message.

The Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU) Undergraduate Senate (UGS) issued a similar letter Wednesday, calling on Levin and Martinez to “reject neutrality and join the effort to safeguard the future of American higher education.”

Beyond calling for a statement, the UGS also asked Stanford to “condemn the presence of ICE on campus,” address the recent revocation of student visas, protect ethnic theme dorms and community centers and defend funding for academic research.

“We welcome receiving communications, including from the ASSU Senate and others,” wrote Charlene Gage, Director of University Public Relations, in an email to The Daily. “The university has been addressing these issues with our community and will continue to do so.”

Ten of the 13 UGS members signed the ASSU message. The Daily has reached out to several undergraduate senators who signed the letter, and the three who did not.

The letters come after Harvard president and Stanford Medicine professor emeritus Alan Garber M.D. ’83 announced Monday that Harvard would reject a lengthy set of demands from the Trump administration. The demands ordered the university to discontinue diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts, prevent the admission of international students who might be “supportive of terrorism or anti-semitism,” submit to a federal audit for “viewpoint diversity” and stop recognizing pro-Palestinian campus groups.

The directives followed huge government funding freezes against universities including Brown, Columbia, Cornell and Northwestern over the schools’ alleged failure to rein in campus anti-semitism. Within hours of Garber’s statement, the federal government froze over $2 billion in funding to Harvard. Trump has also called for Harvard’s tax exempt status to be revoked.

Levin and Martinez expressed support for Garber in a statement to The Daily, writing that “Harvard’s objections to the letter it received are rooted in the American tradition of liberty, a tradition essential to our country’s universities, and worth defending.”

Yet, Levin and Martinez have refrained from making a broader statement opposing the Trump administration’s actions toward higher education or its effects on Stanford, as the ASSU and faculty letters call for.

The Daily reviewed a copy of Martinez’s brief reply to the faculty who wrote and sent University leaders the open letter.

“Thanks very much for your message, and your continued engagement on these issues,” Martinez wrote Wednesday morning. “We look forward to continuing to work with our faculty colleagues as we navigate these challenging times.” The reply did not specifically address the open letter’s demands.

Some faculty expressed frustration with the administration’s cautious stance.

The initial message of support for Harvard was “good as far as it went,” Riskin said, “But it’s fairly limited and still fairly cautious. And what it doesn’t say is that Stanford will defy these government actions and fight back.”

Alduy and Riskin both contested the notion that Stanford’s position under the Trump administration is less dire than Harvard’s, and therefore less demanding of a statement.

“It’s quite clear that this is a war on universities in general, that they want to destroy American higher education. So [the Trump administration] will come to us,” Riskin said. “Solidarity means that you stand with your allies whether or not you immediately have the guns pointing at you.”

“This idea that we are going to wait for the storm before we open the umbrella seems to me really short-sighted,” Alduy said.

Alduy pointed to policies under the Trump administration that have affected Stanford. Cuts to research funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — which could lead to an estimated loss of $160 million annually — have interrupted research labs on campus and contributed to a University staff hiring freeze.

“Not only is Stanford already a target, but it’s already over-complying with things that have not been requested by the administration in writing,” Alduy added, referring to the removal of language and content focused on DEI from University websites.

Riskin, a member of Stanford’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), called for more actions at Stanford to create “solidarity” with universities across the country. She also hopes that students will play a more active role in resisting the Trump administration and pushing for a response from the University.

“The strength of these movements, the energy, and the passion and, ultimately, the real power for change really comes from the students,” she said.

This story is breaking and will be updated.